Weekly civic intelligence report · v2.2
The FBI arrested a suspect in the January 6 pipe bombing case, with evidence having been available at the FBI for four years prior to the arrest. This raises questions about investigative delays and priorities.
A-score (7.1): Enforcement action with 4-year delay raises moderate rule_of_law concerns (3) regarding investigative priorities and timing. Capture (2) and corruption (2) reflect potential institutional dysfunction or selective enforcement. Violence (1) for pipe bomb context. Mechanism modifier 0.7 (enforcement_action is corrective but delay undermines). Scope 0.85 (federal but narrow population). Severity: durability 0.9 (arrest doesn't establish pattern), reversibility 1.1 (delay consequences persist), precedent 0.9 (single case). B-score (50.8): Extremely high distraction potential. Layer1 (29.7/55): outrage_bait 8 (4-year delay narrative), novelty 7 (new arrest in old case), media_friendliness 8 (J6 evergreen topic). Layer2 (21.1/45): mismatch 9 (why now after 4 years?), timing 8 (political context), pattern_match 8 (fits selective enforcement narrative). Intentionality 11/15 (timing suspicious, narrative convenient, selective enforcement pattern, political context) yields 0.55 weight. D-score: -43.7 strongly negative indicates List B classification.
Monitor for: (1) actual evidence details and arrest timeline documentation, (2) DOJ/FBI official explanation for 4-year delay, (3) whether this becomes sustained narrative about selective enforcement vs. one-off story, (4) comparison with other delayed prosecutions to assess pattern, (5) political instrumentalization of delay narrative by various actors. Key question: Does evidence support genuine investigative delay or is delay claim itself distortion?